2022 (11) TMI 1419 - ITAT MUMBAI

Nature of receipt - revenue or capital receipt - payment of Net Present Value of deferred sales tax liability, granted under the incentive scheme of State Government of Himachal Pradesh AND pre-payment of deferred sales tax liability - HELD THAT:- As the material facts of the case are admittedly identical with the facts of the assessment year 2006-07, and the learned CIT(A) has categorically observed so, we have no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view taken by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the impugned receipts as capital receipts.

Special Capital Incentive availed in respect of unit situated in the state of Maharashtra and Excise Duty Incentive is required to be treated as capital receipt and to be excluded from the total income of the assessee

Disallowance of Employees Stock Option Expenses should be deleted as relying on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd [2018 (1) TMI 320 - ITAT MUMBAI] and taking note of the special bench decision in the case of Biocon Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE]

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- We restrict the disallowance under section 14A to 1% of tax-exempt income. Ordered, accordingly.

Adjustment of book profits under section 15JB for the 14A disallowance - we find that this aspect of the matter stands concluded, in favour of the assessee, by a special bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]

Additional depreciation u/s 32 (1)(iia) - eligible assets acquired during the Previous Year - Ceasure of asset after first year use - only objection of the AO is that the provisions refer to "new machinery or plant" and therefore the machinery will cease to be a new machinery after the end of the first year in which it is installed or put to use - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1807 - ITAT KOLKATA] stand taken by the revenue is not supported by the language of statutory provision. The condition imposed by the relevant provisions is that Plant and Machinery must be new at the time of installation to be eligible for additional depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) and not new in subsequent years.

The expression "new machinery" is therefore to be construed as referring to the condition that at the time of acquisition or installation the machinery or plant should be new. Going by the legislative history of the relevant provision, we are of the view that the condition for allowing additional depreciation only in the initial assessment year ceased to exist as and from 01-04-2006. The plain language of the section warrants such an interpretation. Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition of unutilized CENVAT credit as on last day of accounting year is to be deleted as appellant himself has already carried out necessary adjustment u/s 145A which was duly certified by Tax Auditors and hence any further adjustment was not warranted.

Deduction u/s 80-IA on Infrastructure facility, being Rail Systems - Claim denied as prescribed certificates were not filed along with the return of income - HELD THAT:- As noted by the authorities below, the form 10CCB is not filed in this case, and that is a mandatory requirement under section 80IA(7) for making a claim under section 80IA. While it has been contended before us that the form 10CCB was filed alongwith the revised return of income, the material before us does not evidence so. In the orders of the AO as also the CIT(A), it is specifically submitted that the form 10CCB is not filed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, and the absence of clarity on this factual aspect, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Office for fresh adjudication by way of a speaking order.

TP Adjustment - interest paid by the appellant under Bare Boat Charter cum Demise Arrangement entered with its Associated Enterprise - CIT(A) directing the TPO/AO to apply LIBOR Plus 350 point as a benchmark for determining the ALP regarding payment of interest for purchase of ships under BBCD arrangement - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2022 (12) TMI 740 - ITAT MUMBAI] 2005-06 CIT(A) has rightly noted, what needs to be benchmarked is the transaction between the assessee and its AE, and that transaction, in our considered view, is to be considered in a broader context- rather than as a simplistic borrowing transaction, which it is not. The assessee has taken the vessels under a BBCD arrangement and, while entering into this arrangement, the AE essentially has to factor in the financing arrangement. The consideration for the BBCD instalments is based on the cost of finance, as also the cost of vessels, to the AE, and, as such, there is no occasion for sharing the difference between the interest rate implicit in the BBCD arrangement and the cost of borrowing to the AE.

While examining the rate of interest under the BBCD also, one has to bear in mind the fact that it cannot be compared with a borrowing arrangement simpliciter as are the transactions on which LIBOR plus rates apply. Learned Departmental Representative has not been able to show any justification for LIBOR plus 300 bps either, and his challenge primarily is even to this approach of benchmarking.

No material before us to support the findings of the CIT(A) in any case, and the findings of the AO, as noted above and in our considered view, are unsustainable in law anyway. In any event, interest is only one part of the working in the computation of instalments, and one cannot consider the same on a standalone basis in the transaction. The benchmarking is to be done for the entire transaction and not a small and isolated transaction segment. The interest rate of 7.5% implicit in the BBCD arrangement is a part of the pricing and cannot be considered separately. We uphold the grievance of the assessee and delete the impugned ALP adjustment

MAT computation u/s 115JB - We direct the AO to exclude the sales tax incentive subsidy for computing book profit under section 115 JB.

Sales Tax incentives received under various schemes of different states is capital in nature as decided in own case of assessee 2006-07.

Nature of expenses - expenditure grouped under the nomenclature Community Welfare Expenses, temple expenses, consultancy charges, service charges, mine prospecting expenses AND Pooja/ function expenses - Principle on consistency - HELD THAT:- Right from the assessment years 1988-89 to 1994-95, the coordinate benches have allowed appeal of the assessee on this point, and from the assessment years 1995-96 to 2004-05, in which the first appellate authority has deleted similar disallowance, the coordinate benches have rejected the grievances of the Assessing Officer, against the reliefs so granted by the CIT(A). Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute this position but relies upon the stand of the Assessing Officer nevertheless.

Deduction u/s 35 D being 1/5th of the expenditure incurred on issue of FCCB - CIT(A) allowed deduction - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the CIT(A) has merely remitted the matter to the file of the AO with a direction “to verify the facts from records and allow consequential relief to the assessee as per law, if any”. The grievance of the Assessing Officer is thus misconceived and devoid of any legally sustainable merits. We reject the same.